Characterizations of weighted Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces with variable smoothness

By similarity, we only provide proof for the homogeneous Besov case. It directly follows from the proof of Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4 that

where \psi_{1/t}^L is the function defined in (Proof). Due to the proof of (?), we have

Therefore, the estimate \|f\|_{\mathring{B}_{p,q}^\phi(w)}\lesssim \|f\|_{\mathring{\mathcal{B}}_{p,q}^\phi(w)} is obtained. Due to (?),

where

Since

we also have the converse estimate. The theorem is proved.

We first observe that for any multi-index \alpha\in\big(\mathbb{N}_0\big)^d and x,\,h\in\mathbb{R}^d,

for some nonzero constants c_{\alpha,\beta}. Here, for \alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d) and \beta=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_d), \beta\leq \alpha denotes that \beta_i\leq \alpha_i for all i=1,\,\ldots,\,d. Indeed,

and

It follows from (Proof) that if P is a polynomial with \mathrm{deg}\,P<L, then \mathcal{D}_h^LP\equiv 0 for all h\in\mathbb{R}^d, which implies the first assertion in (1.8). For the second assertion in (1.8), due to similarity, we consider only the case \mathring{\mathscr{X}}_{p,q}^\phi(\mathbb{R}^d)=\mathring{\mathscr{B}}_{p,q}^\phi(\mathbb{R}^d). Let \mathrm{deg}\,P=:M\geq L, then (Proof) implies that

where Q_i(x,h) is a polynomial satisfying that

Take (x_0,\sigma_0)\in\mathbb{R}^d\times \mathbb{S}^{d-1} and \delta>0 such that

where E_1=B_\delta(x_0) and E_2=B_\delta(\sigma_0)\cap \mathbb{S}^{d-1}. Put

Then for any x\in E_1, \sigma\in E_2, and r\geq R,

Consequently, we obtain that

Since \phi\in\mathcal{I}_o(0,L), there exists \epsilon>0 such that for any r\in [R,\infty), r^M\phi(r^{-1})\geq r^L\phi(r^{-1})\gtrsim r^{\epsilon} (see (?)). In addition, w(E_1)>0 because w>0 a.e. on \mathbb{R}^d. Therefore, the last term in (Proof) is infinite. The proof is completed.

The first three assertions are in [grafakos2014classical, Corollary 7.2.6, Lemma 9.2.1, Theorem 7.2.2], respectively. The fourth assertion can be found in [G1973, Lemma 3]. Thus, we only prove the last assertion. Let w be of class RH_s(\mathbb{R}^d). Then

By making use of (Proof), it follows that for a subset S of a cube \mathcal{Q}

Let f\in L_p(w). We only prove for the case z=\vec{n}\in\mathbb{Z}^d and \vec{n}\not=0, since generalization for z\in\mathbb{R}^d follows from the argument in [Heo_Hong_Yang2020, Lemma 2.9]. Let \mathbb{Q}^\lambda be a collection of all dyadic cubes Q such that

• Q is maximal with respect to inclusion;

• \frac{1}{|Q|}\int_{Q}|f(y)|~\mathrm{d}y > \lambda.

Then it follows that

Moreover, for m=[\log_2|\vec{n}|]+1 and each dyadic cube Q\in \mathbb{Q}^\lambda, the cubes

satisfy

(see the proofs of Lemmas 2.6 and 2.9 in [Heo_Hong_Yang2020]). Here, aQ (a\in\mathbb{R}_+) denotes a cube whose side length is a times of \ell(Q) with the same center as Q. From (Proof), we have

(see Propositions 2.1.(ii) and (v)) and

Thus we have

and this means that

(for the last inequality, see [grafakos2014modern, Theorem 9.1.9]). For z\in\mathbb{R}^d, it is known in the proof of [Heo_Hong_Yang2020, Lemma 2.9] that for z=\vec{n}+z_0, z_0\in[0,1]^d

where \vec{n}_i \in \mathbb{Z}^d and each component of \vec{n}_i takes on values of either 0 or 1. Therefore we have

The proposition is proved.

The proof of the first inequality is nothing but taking j=0 in the proof of the second inequality. Hence we only consider \mathcal{D}_\rho^L \Delta_j f. For a smooth function F on \mathbb{R}^d, the fundamental theorem of calculus implies that

By using (Proof) inductively, we obtain

where D_x^\alpha=\big(D_{x_1}\big)^{\alpha_1}\cdots \big(D_{x_d}\big)^{\alpha_d}.

Take a Schwartz function \phi\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^d) such that \widehat{\phi}\equiv 1 on \mathrm{supp} (\widehat{\psi}), and denote \phi_{2^j}(x):=2^{jd}\phi(2^jx). Then, we have \widehat{\psi_j} = \widehat{\phi_{2^j}}\,\widehat{\psi_j}, which implies that \Delta_j f = \phi_{2^j} * (\Delta_j f). Note that for \alpha in (Proof),

Since D_x^\alpha\phi\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^d), we obtain that

and that for any \rho\in\mathbb{R}^d,

where I_j = [0, 2^{-j}]^d and \{I_{j,k}\}_{k=1,\dots,N_d} is a collection of all dyadic cubes such that l(I_{j,k})=l(I_j) and (x+I_j)\cap I_{j,k}\neq \emptyset. Thus we have

and by Proposition 2.3, we obtain

With help of (Proof) and (?), it follows that

and note that \frac{d}{r} + \frac{d}{ps}-\frac{d}{p}\leq d.

On the other hand, we have that

For each term in the above, one can check from (?) that

which implies

The lemma is proved by a combination of (?) and (?).

1. This is an easy consequence of [triebel1983theory, Theorem 1.3.1-1] with the fact that (1+|z|)^{d/r}\simeq 1+|z|^{d/r}.

2. By an almost orthogonality of \Delta_j,

   \begin{aligned} |D^{\alpha}_{x}\Delta_jf(x)|&\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\Delta_jf(x-y)|\sum_{k=-1}^1|D^{\alpha}_{x}\psi_{2^{j+k}}(y)|~\mathrm{d}y \\ &\leq M_{j,\lambda}^{*}f(x)\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(1+2^j|y|)^{\lambda}\sum_{k=-1}^1|D^{\alpha}_{x}\psi_{2^{j+k}}(y)|~\mathrm{d}y. \end{aligned}

   Clearly,

   \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(1+2^j|y|)^{\lambda}\sum_{k=-1}^1|D^{\alpha}_{x}\psi_{2^{j+k}}(y)|~\mathrm{d}y=:c2^{j|\alpha|},

   and we remark that c is independent of j. Similarly,

   |D^{\alpha}_{x}S_0f(x)|\leq M_{\lambda}^{0,*}f(x).

3. Let g_j(x):=\Delta_jf(2^{-j}x). Then

   \widehat{g_j}(\xi):=2^{jd}\widehat{\psi}(\xi)\widehat{f}(2^j\xi),\quad \widehat{S_0f}(\xi):=\widehat{\Phi}(\xi)\widehat{f}(\xi).

   Thus \mathrm{supp}(\widehat{g_j}),\mathrm{supp}(\widehat{S_0f})\subseteq B_2(0). Then by the first assertion,

   \begin{aligned} \sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{|g_j(x-z)|}{(1+|z|)^{d/r}} &\leq N(\mathcal{M}(|g_j|^r)(x))^{1/r},\\ \sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{|S_0f(x-z)|}{(1+|z|)^{d/r}} &=M_{\lambda}^{0,*}f(x) \leq N(\mathcal{M}(|S_0f|^r)(x))^{1/r}. \end{aligned}

   This implies that

   \begin{aligned} M_{j,d/r}^{*}f(2^{-j}x)&=\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{|\Delta_jf(2^{-j}x-z)|}{(1+2^{j}|z|)^{d/r}}=\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{|\Delta_jf(2^{-j}x-2^{-j}z)|}{(1+|z|)^{d/r}}\\ &=\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{|g_j(x-z)|}{(1+|z|)^{d/r}}\\ &\leq N(\mathcal{M}(|g_j|^r)(x))^{1/r}=N(\mathcal{M}(|\Delta_jf|^r)(2^{-j}x))^{1/r}. \end{aligned}

4. Due to (Proof) and the definition of \mathcal{D}_\rho^L, we have

   |\mathcal{D}_{\rho}^L\Delta_jf(x)|\leq \min\Big(|\rho|^{L}\sup_{|z|\leq L|\rho|}\sum_{|\alpha|=L}|D^{\alpha}_{x}\Delta_jf(x-z)|,\sup_{|z|\leq L|\rho|}|\Delta_jf(x-z)|\Big).

   By the second assertion of the lemma,

   |\mathcal{D}_{\rho}^L\Delta_jf(x)|\leq N\min(1,|\rho|2^{j})^L\sup_{|z|\leq L|\rho|}M_{j,\lambda}^{*}f(x-z).

   Since

   \sup_{|z|\leq L|\rho|}M_{j,\lambda}^{*}f(x-z)\leq N(1+2^{j}|\rho|)^{\lambda}M_{j,\lambda}^{*}f(x),

   we obtain the result. Similarly,

   |\mathcal{D}_{\rho}^{L}S_0f(x)|\leq N\min(1,|\rho|)^L\sup_{|z|\leq L|\rho|}M_{\lambda}^{0,*}f(x-z)

   and

   \sup_{|z|\leq L|\rho|}M_{\lambda}^{0,*}f(x-z)\leq N(1+|\rho|)^{\lambda}M_{\lambda}^{0,*}f(x).

5. Note that \Phi from (?) is in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^d), hence it follows that

   \begin{aligned} |S_0f(x)| \leq &\int_{B_{1}(0)}|f(x-y)\Phi(y)|~\mathrm{d}y\\ &+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\int_{B_{2^k}(0)\setminus\overline{B_{2^{k-1}}(0)}}|f(x-y)\Phi(y)|~\mathrm{d}y \end{aligned}

   and

   |\Phi(y)|+|y|^{d+1}|\Phi(y)|\leq N.

   This certainly implies that |S_0f|\leq N\mathcal{M} f. For \Delta_j, the change of variable formula yields

   \Delta_jf(x) =\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}f(x-y)\psi_{2^j}(y)~\mathrm{d}y =\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}f(x-2^{-j}y)\psi(y)~\mathrm{d}y.

   Using the similar arguments, we have |\Delta_jf(x)|\leq N\mathcal{M} f(x). The lemma is proved.

One can observe that f=S_0f+\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\Delta_jf. By Minkowski’s inequality,

By (?), we have

which clearly implies that \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(2^j)^{-1}\lesssim \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}2^{-\varepsilon j}<\infty. Hence

Therefore, \|f\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^d,w\,\mathrm{d}x)}\leq N\|f\|_{B_{p,\infty}^{\phi}(\mathbb{R}^d,w\,\mathrm{d}x)}. For the case q \in [1, \infty), it directly follows that

and therefore,

The lemma is proved.

Recall that

when q\geq1 including q=\infty. Since | S_0f (x) |\leq N\mathcal{M}(f)(x), one immediately obtains

For the converse inequality, observe that

whereA_{q'} = (\sum_{j\geq1} \phi(2^j)^{-q'})^{1/q'}, which is bounded by (\sum_{j\geq1} 2^{-j\varepsilon q'})^{1/q'} for some \varepsilon>0. Note that we have \|f\|_{L_p(w)} \lesssim \|f\|_{X_{p,q}^{\phi}(w)} by (Proof) and (Proof). Thus it suffices to handle the following terms:

We only consider j\leq 0 parts, since j\geq1 parts are already contained in \|f\|_{X_{p,q}^{\phi}(w)}.

When X=B, we make use of

Then together with \phi(2^j) \lesssim 2^{j(M- \varepsilon)}, we have for q\in[1,\infty]

This certainly implies that

When X=F, we apply Lemma 2.7. Let T_j:=\Delta_j and f_j:=\phi(2^j)f in Lemma 2.7. Since |\Delta_jf(x)|\leq N\mathcal{M}(f)(x), one verifies that \{T_j\}_{j\leq0} is linearizable and satisfies (2.7). Then by Lemma 2.7, it follows that

where the last inequality follows from \phi(2^j)\lesssim 2^{j(M - \varepsilon)}. The lemma is proved.

Recall that

where the infimum runs over all sequences of functions \{f_j\}_{j\geq0} \subset \mathcal{S}'(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap L_p(w) such that

Step 1. X_1 \lesssim\|f\|_{X_{p,q}^{\phi}(w)}.

In this step, by the similarity, we only prove for X=B. From the support condition of \widehat{f_j}, we have

and

Then by Minkowski’s inequality, it follows that

For q\in[1,\infty), we apply Hölder’s inequality to obtain

where \delta=0 if q=1 and \delta>0 if q\in(1,\infty). If we choose \varepsilon>\delta\geq0 and use Fubini’s theorem, then

For q=\infty, we simply have

This implies that

Step 2. \|f\|_{X_{p,q}^{\phi}(w)}\lesssim X_1.

First we consider X=B. Similar to the previous case, for k\geq2 one can observe that

Since \Delta_j f is less than a constant multiple of \mathcal{M} f, we use the weighted L_p boundedness of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function so that

Take \delta=0 if q=1 and \delta>0 if q\in(1,\infty). For q\in[1,\infty), we apply Hölder’s inequality and Fubini’s theorem to obtain

where \varepsilon>\delta\geq0. For q=\infty, we simply have

It is left to control \|S_0 f\|_{L_p(w)} and \|\Delta_j f\|_{L_p(w)}. One can observe that

Therefore,

for all sequences of functions \{f_j\}_{j=0}^{\infty} and this certainly implies that

Now, we suppose X=F. Similar to (?), for q\in(1,\infty) we have

Then |\Delta_k(f_j-f_{j-1})|\leq N\mathcal{M}(f_j-f_{j-1}) yields

Let T_j:=\mathcal{M} and G_j:=\phi(2^j)(f_j-f_{j-1}) in Lemma 2.7. Note that \{T_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}} is linearizable and satisfies (2.7). Thus by Lemma 2.7, it follows that

Hence

for all sequences of functions \{f_j\}_{j=0}^{\infty} and this certainly implies that \|f\|_{F_{p,q}^{\phi}(w)}\lesssim F_1. The lemma is proved.

Recall that

Step 1. \|f\|_{X_{p,q}^{\phi}(w)}\lesssim X_2.

Since |S_0f|\leq N\mathcal{M}(f), it suffices to prove

First we prove for X=B. To do so, we define

Indeed, (?) follows from \Delta_jf=\Delta_j \left( \left(\psi_{t/2}+\psi_{t}+\psi_{2t}+\psi_{4t} \right)\ast f \right) for all t\in[2^{j-1},2^{j}) and \int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^j} t^{-1}~\mathrm{d}t = N. By making use of (?), we have for p\in(1,\infty],q\in[1,\infty),

Note that the last line equals to

If q=\infty, then

and this implies that

For X=F, we have

By Lemma 2.7,

Note that

Hence we have

Step 2. X_2 \lesssim \|f\|_{X_{p,q}^{\phi}(w)}.

By Lemma 2.8, it suffices to prove

We begin with X=B. If t<1/4, then \psi_t\ast f=\psi_t\ast S_0f, hence we have

and

Then, we make use of the following equality

to obtain that for q\in[1,\infty)

For q=\infty, we have

This certainly implies that

For X=F, we proceed in a similar manner. Note that

Then for q\in(1,\infty) we have

and

With the help of Lemma 2.7,

The lemma is proved.

Recall that

where

1. B_2\lesssim B_3: Observe that

   \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\widehat{\psi}_{t}^L (2^{k}\xi) = \sum_{j=1}^{L} \binom{L}{j}(-1)^{L-j}=(-1)^{L+1},

   and

   \mathrm{supp}(\widehat{\psi}_t)\subseteq \mathrm{supp}(\widehat{\psi}^L_t) = \{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^d:(2L)^{-1}t\leq|\xi|\leq 2t\}.

   Thus we have

   \begin{aligned} \psi_{\frac{1}{t}}\ast f=(-1)^{L+1}\psi_{\frac{1}{t}}\ast(\psi_{\frac{2}{t}}^L + \psi_{\frac{1}{t}}^{L}+\psi_{\frac{1}{2t}}^{L})\ast f. \end{aligned}

   By Lemma 2.5, we also have

   \begin{aligned} |\psi_{\frac{1}{t}}\ast f| \lesssim \left(\left|\mathcal{M}(\psi_{\frac{2}{t}}^{L}\ast f)\right|+ \left|\mathcal{M}(\psi_{\frac{1}{t}}^{L}\ast f)\right|+\left|\mathcal{M}(\psi_{\frac{1}{2t}}^{L}\ast f)\right|\right). \end{aligned}

   Using (?), one can check that for p\in(1,\infty] and q\in[1,\infty]

   \begin{aligned} \Big( \int_0^\infty \phi(t^{-1})^q \left\|\psi_{\frac{1}{t}}\ast f\right\|_{L_p(w)}^q ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t} \Big)^{\frac{1}{q}} \lesssim \Big( \int_0^\infty \phi(t^{-1})^q \left\|\psi_{\frac{1}{t}}^L \ast f\right\|_{L_p(w)}^q ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t} \Big)^{\frac{1}{q}}. \end{aligned}

   This proves

   B_2 \lesssim B_3.

2. F_2\lesssim F_3: Note that for 2^{j-1} <t<2^j

   \begin{aligned} \widehat{\psi}_\frac{1}{t} &= (-1)^{L+1} \widehat{\psi}_\frac{1}{t} \left( \widehat{\psi}_{2^{-j-2}}^L + \widehat{\psi}_{2^{-j-1}}^L +\widehat{\psi}_{2^{-j}}^L+\widehat{\psi}_{2^{-j+1}}^L + \widehat{\psi}_{2^{-j+2}}^L\right),\\ \psi_{2^j}^L &= N \psi_{2^j}^L \ast \left(\sum_{i=-2}^{2} \int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^j} \psi_{2^i t}^L ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t}\right). \end{aligned}

   The inequality (?) is nothing but (?), and the inequality (?) is a variant of (?). Then by making use of (?), we have

   \begin{aligned} \int_0^\infty \phi(t^{-1})^q | \psi_\frac{1}{t} \ast f|^q ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t} &\lesssim \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \phi(2^{-j})^q \left( \mathcal{M}(\psi_{-j}^L \ast f)(x) \right)^q. \end{aligned}

   Since \mathcal{M} is bounded on L_p(w), we apply Lemma 2.7 and obtain

   \begin{aligned} \Big\| \Big( \int_0^\infty \phi(t^{-1})^q | \psi_\frac{1}{t} \ast f|^q ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t} \Big)^{\frac{1}{q}} \Big\|_{L_p(w)} &\lesssim \Big\| \Big( \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \phi(2^{-j})^q \left|\psi_{2^{-j}}^L \ast f\right|^q \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}\\ &= \Big\| \Big( \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \phi(2^{j})^q \left|\psi_{2^{j}}^L \ast f\right|^q \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}. \end{aligned}

   Then we apply (?) to the last line of (?).

   \begin{aligned} &\Big\| \Big( \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \phi(2^{j})^q \left|\psi_{2^{j}}^L \ast f\right|^q \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}\\ &= \Big\| \Big( \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \phi(2^{j})^q \Big| \psi_{2^{j} }^L \ast \sum_{-2\leq i\leq 2} \int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^j} \psi_{2^i t}^L\ast f ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t} \Big|^q \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}\\ &\lesssim \Big\| \Big( \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \phi(2^{j})^q \Big| \mathcal{M}\Big( \int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^j} \psi_{t}^L\ast f ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t}\Big) \Big|^q \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}. \end{aligned}

   By Lemma 2.7 again to the last line of (?), it follows that

   \begin{aligned} &\Big\| \Big( \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \phi(2^{j})^q \Big| \mathcal{M}\Big( \int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^j} \psi_{t}^L\ast f ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t}\Big) \Big|^q \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}\\ &\lesssim \Big\| \Big( \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \phi(2^{j})^q \Big| \int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^j} \psi_{t}^L\ast f ~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t}\Big|^q \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}\\ &\leq \Big\| \Big( \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^j} \phi(t)^q \left| \psi_{t}^L\ast f \right|^q~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t} \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}\\ &= \Big\| \Big( \int_0^\infty \phi(t^{-1})^q \left| \psi_{\frac{1}{t}}^L\ast f \right|^q~\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{t} \Big)^\frac{1}{q} \Big\|_{L_p(w)}, \end{aligned}

   where the last equality follows from summation over j\in\mathbb{Z} and the change of variable t\to t^{-1}. Combining (?), (?), (?), we conclude

   F_2 \lesssim F_3.

The converse direction, verifying X_3 \lesssim X_2, is rather simpler than showing X_2 \lesssim X_3. Let |f|_X denote |f|_B, |f|_F with |f|_B = \|f\|_{L_p(w)} and |f|_F = |f(x)|. Then we have

Hence, we easily obtain X_3 \lesssim X_2. The lemma is proved.

Due to similarity, we only prove for X_4. Recall that

By Lemma 2.5 (2),

and this certainly implies that

For the converse inequality, note that w\in A_p(\mathbb{R}^d), for r\in(0,R_{w,p}), the weight w\in A_{p/r}(\mathbb{R}^d). Then we apply Lemma 2.5 (3) to obtain

Thus we have

The lemma is proved.

By [CLSW2023trace, Proposition A.3],

where (H_p^2(\mathbb{R}^d,w\,\mathrm{d}x),L_p(\mathbb{R}^d,w\,\mathrm{d}x))_{\widetilde{W}_{\alpha},q} is the generalized interpolation space (for definition, see [CLSW2023trace, Section 3]). First, we choose

such that

with the estimate

The existence of v and g is established in [CLSW2023trace, Theorem 1.4]. By [Dong_Kim2021, Theorem 2.2], there exists a unique solution \tilde{v}\in L_q((0,T),\tilde{w}\,\mathrm{d}t;H_p^2(w)) such that

with the estimate

If we put u:=v+\tilde{v}, then u is a solution of (5.2) satisfying (5.2). Therefore, (Proof), (Proof) and Theorem 1.5 yield that

The uniqueness follows from [Dong_Kim2021, Theorem 2.2]. The theorem is proved.

By Hölder’s inequality,

where 1/p+1/p'=1. This implies that

Similarly, we have

Therefore

Since \tilde{\phi}_p\in\mathcal{I}_o(0,M), by Theorem 1.5, we have

The remaining part of the proof focuses on proving

for an appropriate \tilde{q}. We divide the proof into two cases.

\bullet Case 1. p\geq q.

By taking \tilde{q}=p, we have

Since

it is clear that

\bullet Case 2. 1\leq p<q.

By taking \tilde{q}=q and using Minkowski’s inequality, we obtain

which implies

The theorem is proved.